Sunday, November 29, 2009

Boys face compulsory feminism lessons

In my last post I criticised White Ribbon Day, a day when men are supposed to wear white ribbons to show their opposition to domestic violence.

I criticised it on the grounds that it was being used to promote feminist patriarchy theory. Patriarchy theory claims that domestic violence is a result of men as a class using violence against women to secure an unjust power and privilege in society. Therefore, domestic violence is held to be "systemic" - it pervades the whole society as a cultural norm amongst men, but can be abolished for good once men start to "break ranks" with other men and act against their own power and privilege.

One reader wrote in suggesting I had missed the point in what I wrote:

This "article" misses the point on so many levels, it's comical. That's fine. Keep looking for excuses not to do anything about a problem as prevalent and upsetting as domestic violence. Keep looking outside of your comfortable existence. When you realize that we all can participate in making the world better for everyone, perhaps you'll be a happier person.

I understand this response. If you're not aware of the personalities and the politics behind the campaign you might well just take it all at face value as a worthy attempt to counter domestic violence.

But I'll repeat again - the campaign is a very long way from being politically neutral. The day after I posted, the Melbourne Herald Sun published the following news item:

Boys to get gender lesson

Feminism classes aim to curb violence

Boys face compulsory feminism programs in state schools across Victoria in a major push to prevent violence against females.

A VicHealth report for the state Education Department calls for teachers to be trained in gender, violence and sexual health issues ...

The report says programs for all students should start at primary level and be reinforced across all year levels in subjects including drama, English, science and sport ...

It said feminist theories were best at explaining the link between gender power relations and violence against women, and must underpin the programs ...

Report author Dr Michael Flood admitted there was always the risk of a backlash, but said it was crucial that students were taught that sexist attitudes and unequal relationships between the sexes were central to explaining violence ...

"...a feminist conceptual framework is essential ... to anchor the political commitments of the program."

So I was correct in what I wrote. The violence issue is being used for political purposes - in this case to have all state schools students indoctrinated in feminist patriarchy theory across a range of subjects every year from primary school onwards.

And who is this Dr Michael Flood who authored the report? He is a liberal activist who wants to deconstruct both masculinity and heterosexuality. Again, there is an ideology at work here. Liberals think of autonomy as the overriding good in society. We are to self-determine who we are, which means rejecting anything we don't get to choose for ourselves. We don't get to choose our sex - the fact of being a man or a woman - which means that liberals want to make an unchosen ("essential") masculinity or femininity not matter.

That's why Dr Flood doesn't approve of appealing to men's sense of masculine responsibility in domestic violence campaigns. He doesn't like using the slogan "real men don't hit women" because,

We should be wary of approaches which appeal to men's sense of 'real' manhood ... These may intensify men's investment in male identity, and this is part of what keeps patriarchy in place (Stoltenberg, 1990). Such appeals are especially problematic if they suggest that there are particular qualities which are essentially or exclusively male. This simply reinforces notions of biological essentialism ... (Engaging Men, p.3)

Note that he is hostile to "men's investment in male identity". He disapproves of men having a "male identity" because he thinks of it negatively as an oppressive social construct used to prop up male privilege and power. For him, the whole notion of "man" and "woman" is an artificial construct:

Nor should we take as given the categories "men" and "women". The binaries of male and female are socially produced ... (Between Men and Masculinity, p. 210)

Bent straights: Diversity and flux among heterosexual men
Michael Flood
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS) La Trobe University

New formations of sexuality are emerging among heterosexual men, informed by constructions of ‘queer’ and ‘metrosexual’ masculinities and other alternatives.

Some straight men express alliance with gay men or question the binary of heterosexual and homosexual, or proclaim themselves to be ‘wusses’ and ‘sissies’, or take up egalitarian or even subordinant roles in their heterosexual sexual relations, or adopt a feminised preoccupation with personal grooming.

Such developments signal a weakening of longstanding constructions of heterosexual masculinity, and there is significant diversity in the contemporary sexual cultures of young heterosexual men. Yet at the same time, many heterosexual men’s social and sexual relations with women are organised both by gendered power relations centred on male privilege and by homophobic and homosocial policing.

It's politically progressive, thinks Dr Flood, for heterosexual men to declare themselves to be "wusses" and "sissies," to accept subordinate roles in sexual relations, and to adopt a feminised lifestyle. Dr Flood welcomes such developments because he supports the deconstruction of heterosexual masculinity, which he believes underpins patriarchy and male privilege.

And yet Dr Flood is the person that VicHealth sought out to design compulsory programmes of indoctrination for Victorian school students.

So, yes, patriarchy theory must be argued against wherever we meet it, including in White Ribbon Day campaigns. It's not something harmless that we can overlook in order to get a buzz in supporting a cause.

We're not in a position to stop the VicHealth bureaucrats from imposing their views on schoolboys, but we can maintain a principled opposition and perhaps even benefit when the backlash that Dr Flood fears does eventually come about.

In the meantime, we should encourage men to be more, not less, masculine. You cannot defend or build a civilisation when men are demoralised, defensive and lacking in moral status in society. We should applaud those men who do step forward and use their masculine strengths to work not only for their families but for their larger tradition.

25 comments:

As an ex-cop I got to see a lot of domestic incidents involving not only violent and manipulative men but also their female counterparts.

The big myth is that ALL domestic incidents are perpetrated by males, WRONG!

The majority incidents are committed by males, but to exclude the violent female perpetrator is disengenuous and dishonest!

I saw many males receive hospital treatment at the hands of their spouses or girlfriends, some of whom were very violent when crossed.

In my opinion, Flood is a charlatan masquerading as a professor. It seems a lot of useless leftist idiots offer as proof that they know what they are on about, a professorship which has usually been gained by plagarising certain leftist doctrine.

If I ever met this idiot in a dark alley I would give him a very valuable lesson about masculinity!

a very sick individual. I can only compare his social engineering to that of Hitler when the latter targetted Jews. Michael Flood targets males.

Overtly, Flood decoys people from his true agenda by claiming that he wants to champion "a plurality of masculinities". ie. he wants a world where we all appreciate many ways and styles and beliefs of men.

BUT..... then he uniformly concludes that there exist no plurality of masculinities (to use his phrase) in school boys and in mens rights groups and collectives. As far as Fascist Flood is concerned all these males are of a singular mono-type: conservative patriarchal, violent anti-feminists. Only one kind of man exists outside of pro-feminist men's groups.

So in short he OVERTLY champions a plurality of masculinities, then COVERTLY writes studies concluding that there is no diversity among school boys, men's rights groups, fathers collectives, and the like.

He takes what is truly a diverse rainbow of views and men, and homogenises them into one stereotype.

His reason? He was bullied at school and wants to take revenge against all males, particularly school boys. It is a vendetta.

Apparently, any form of dissent against the "education programs for young blokes" (read feminist indoctrination) being described here is "...to be deplored".

One of the problems with having a "progressive" government in Victoria is that it is in a position to give carte blanche to unelected left-wing wackos to indoctrinate our kids with this abject nonsense.

Furthermore, whenever I see I an opinion piece that talks about "blokes" I know instantly it's going to be another vicious attack on men and masculinity.

We're living in an age when commentators in the media attempt to outdo each other to see who can express the most morally self-righteous indignation at anyone that doesn't swallow the left-wing party line they are pushing.

The author of the article above makes reference to "bad thinking" which should be "..nip(ed) in the bud".

If the "blokes" who wrote these articles could legislate against bad thinking (thought crimes) they'd be locking all of us here away at the earliest opportunity.

I can even imagine contact sports being banned or rules altered for being too 'violent'(read masculine).

I find it interesting how a civilian male is required to accept verbal and psychological violence without retaliation and yet the state's law enforcement agents resort to truncheons at the mere whiff of intransigence.

Yesterday the famous golfer, Eldrick Woods, was physically attacked by his wife. Initial reports indicate he was retreating from her in a panic. It will be interesting to find whether or not she is arrested for domestic violence.

As a female college student I find the title of the major, "Women's Studies" to be frustrating, simply because it infers that these are women's issues and thus excludes male participation.

Rape, STD's, domestic violence, etc are all male and female problems.

It seems imperative that we start giving ownership of these problems to both men and women in order to actually start solving them. Otherwise we teach or male children that they are perpetrators of the problem not part of the solution.

Michael Flood here. I just wanted to note that the Herald Sun piece misrepresents the report. I hope that your readers will actually look at it. It's available here: http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/stuman/wellbeing/respectful_relationships/respectful-relationships.pdfCheers,michael.

"Yesterday the famous golfer, Eldrick Woods, was physically attacked by his wife. Initial reports indicate he was retreating from her in a panic. It will be interesting to find whether or not she is arrested for domestic violence."

What, and harass this poor defenceless woman who was subject to male oppression all her life?

I can even imagine contact sports being banned or rules altered for being too 'violent'(read masculine)."

I've mentioned before that I'm in the army and issues here of masculinity are front and centre as no doubt they are in the police.

If I can be a god awful sociologist for a while let me give an insight into army life. Here we generally have three types of guys. Those who are bit more blokey and tough, those who are considered a bit more "normal" or average and those who are a bit more sensitive and maybe a bit nerdy.

The first category are your strong players, who are good on the job and in a fight. On the other hand they can be a bit overconfident at times and maybe more likely to be involved in large incidents, such as car crashes on the drink. The middle category are generally reliable but can be a little uninspiring at times. The third category may be more nerdy or sensitive. They often (though not always) may have more trouble keeping up and may receive extra training, on the other hand they may have excellent specialties and have very good attention to detail.

Ok so who are the real blokes? Generally the first category are in the limelight and would consider themselves the real blokes. They will (if they're not too busy having fun) be more likely to receive promotion. They will then be commanders and interested in getting the best out of their men. They'll ask how to best train their second and third category men. A general theme is for these other guys to be pushed to be more manlike. Apart from their work they are encouraged to spend more time with other men, drink, pick up, play sports well. There is no doubt that underlying this can be strong "humour" (teasing of various types) and suggestions of violence. Guys are expected to tow the line of the blokey guys. This can go as far as a commander, who is a more middle or nerdy guy, being openly or subtly disrespected by his blokey subordinates.

This bloke culture isn't specifically in the army guidelines and rules but is nonetheless an underlying theme of army life. Occasionally there will be conflict between the bloke culture and the rules culture. A most notable example of this today is around issues of "equity" or "bastardisation". A blokey guy may consider himself justified in severely disciplining a lower tier guy or one he considers insubordinate. According to the rules this can be considered harassment and complaints can be made. This can be a very careful dance. Soldiers who are likely to complain are discouraged and those who are likely to cause complaints encouraged to pull back.

What can happen is that the possibility of pulling up a commander on a harassment issue can destablise the chain of command and the unit. If a junior soldier is successful a tough commander may say "what's the point? I can't even discipline (beat, threaten, continually punish) a little toe rag! What is the Army coming to?" If a softer soldier fails they may say "I have an unhinged commander who's out to get me rather than train me." In practice this is an issue for senior commanders to handle carefully.

Should the harassment complaints be allowed or harassment generously interpreted? Should the Army go "soft" in order to be modern? Is the "old" army actually ineffective, for instance with high turn over or injury rates whilst the "new" army has better results training and retaining people?

There is no answer, I don’t think, to these questions but they are a continual background issue. No doubt a "harder" army would have excellent war fighting skills in many respects which would help us uphold our reputation for success. Hardness, however, can be a front for excessive aggression or barely controlled violence which can distract from professionalism and have negative consequence for the team and on the battlefield.

Yearly "Equity" lessons, which in some respects is roughly the equivalent of compulsory teaching of feminism in the classroom, is now compulsory across the army. Where this will lead to we're not entirely sure but all guys must now consider how hard is too hard and what isn't hard enough to still be effective.

If the issue is that masculinity has strong traits of violence in it it is hard to entirely disagree. Being masculine without sending out vibes of threat or menace or desire for excessive control I think is the modern challenge for men.

Jesse 7:"Should the harassment complaints be allowed or harassment generously interpreted? Should the Army go "soft" in order to be modern? Is the "old" army actually ineffective, for instance with high turn over or injury rates whilst the "new" army has better results training and retaining people?"

From my experience as a nerdier (and older, and higher IQ) guy among blokes in the British Territorial Army - personally I responded fairly well to the female instructors' kinder, gentler approach, but I don't think it was appropriate for the blokey guys. I'd suggest units should be segregated into all-female, all-bloke, all-average-guy and all-nerd. This shouldn't necessarily be related to specialisation; you can have nerd or female combat infantry and blokey Signals (my unit), for instance. It's more about esprit de corps.

Incidentally, while I saw a few tough women, even the nerdiest guy was tougher and certainly much stronger than the average female soldier.

"Masculinity is supposed to connect men to honour, to pride, to courage, to strength of character, to integrity, to perseverance, to protectiveness, to patriotism etc.

It shows, I think, just how much masculinity has been erased from within Western culture that we no longer readily identify these qualities as higher expressions of masculinity."

We could certainly do with more of this is the army. What goes on is training for fighting with very little connection to the context or purposes of why we do it. Also we can sometimes forget why we're there and become preocupied with oneupsmanship and status seeking. I think both trends can add to soldiers dissolusionment when things get hard. It can aslo lead to soldiers having trouble accepting the discipline or perhaps encourage others to abuse it. On the other hand army isn't the boy scouts and I also really like the job.

"I'd suggest units should be segregated into all-female, all-bloke, all-average-guy and all-nerd. This shouldn't necessarily be related to specialisation; you can have nerd or female combat infantry and blokey Signals (my unit), for instance. It's more about esprit de corps."

Generally when everyones on the same page everything runs smoothly. However, a good commander can take the best from everyone, no matter what the situation, and have a superior team.

You know Jesse I am offended by your comments. It seems as if you are putting women into a box, stereotyping them into individuals that behave a specific way. Israel has a fabulous army for its population size and they put women in all parts of operation in the military.

I say this with sympathy because I used to work wild land fire, and growing up with all brothers on a ranch, I was used to pulling my weight. A lot of the women I worked with on the fire line just simply relied on their male co workers to do their work falling back on the excuse that they couldn't do it. The result was that I had to work harder to overcome a stereo type that had been perpetuated by my female co workers.

My point is that the military is not nor should it be a stronghold of masculinity. It is an American stronghold, and to deny women the ability to serve is not necessarily an issue of feminism but an issue of patriotism. Do you really want to make the point that just because I am a woman that I cannot defend my country? I can sympathize with what your saying, but on this point I tell you that defending ones country is not only a privilege but the right of every American regardless of gender

Allright you make your point. I won't deny I see the army as a stronghold of masculinity, so to speak. When it comes to women serving in the army they are present in most corps although they are limited in some combat corps.

I went to a boys school and I still look at girls as a bit of the "other", maybe this is my problem and I'll have to learn that girls can do this stuff and I should get over it.

However, this is my concern.

1. Why? Women can do so much can't you leave us the ability to be in the front and take the greatest risks? Its not like you're not allowed in the services we're talking about infantry or armour.

2. Blokes are tough and they can be in each others faces. You can work like a guy, can you fight like one? Can you be beasted like one? Humiliated like one? Expected to give it absolutely everything you've got? Take a bullet like one? Or do we go a little easier on you because you're not a guy. I've heard it said that standards won't slip, is that true? In my experience at my recruit course a girl did her ankle at the first obstacle on the assault course, we walked the rest of it so we wouldn't leave her behind. The assault course was the high point of our training and we walked it.

3. Why again? I'm told women in the bush have to be taken out of the front and given showers every 3 days or so for hygiene reasons. I don't recall being taken out of the bush for that. I don't recall the ANZACs (Australian soldiers in WW1) being taken out of the line for hygiene. So are you serious? If you're not as strong, if you have other issues that make front line service harder why do it? I don't say I'm SAS (navy seal) standard and I can live with myself.

4. Some women are hard enough to do it. GI Jane. Sure GI Jane kicks ass but now we're looking at everyone as individuals, nice in theory harder in practise. As it is we get too many weak guys in the army and that brings down the standard.

5. Its not army anymore its camping, who's getting on with who blah blah blah. This is all guys talk about and no fraternisation rules can stop it.

Its nice to know for me that this is a service that I can provide to the community and its also nice for me that its a guy thing. Maybe I'm a chauvinist.

Is the Israeli army all that good? They got pounded last time in Lebanon. I've heard the Israelis have some excellent units and some weak units. I'd have to look closer at the Israeli army before I said anything more.

I appreciate your desire to serve your country and acknowledge that maybe I'm not entirely right on this issue, however, can you not leave us this? A bolt hole of masculinity so to speak. The problem with the services is that its hard to asses how well they're going. We use them once in a while and victory in war can depend on so many factors. Can we not tinker with this while we (in Australia) have a well respected and effective army. Thanks for your comment and I'm not trying to offend you.

I cannot stand White Ribbon Day. It argues that domestic violence is simply a misunderstanding and mistakes, and that a little bit of social awareness will fix the problem. It’s good to make domestic violence a dinner time conversation, but you’ll never heal a bruised face by selling ribbons. It is totally stupid – what we need is a program that actually explains the causes of domestic violence and shows in a practical way how it can be stopped.There are many different types of feminism. But the report just said ‘feminism’: that means many different things to many different people. (For example, some people follow ultra-left feminism: all men are hideous sexist bastards and always will be; the only way to liberate women is to exodus society and form a community of women only.)The patriarchy theory is a popular but terribly flawed theory on why women are oppressed. It is based on accepting the gender stereotypes: men are masculine, so therefore they enforce their masculinity onto the feminine women. Hideous logic and stupid arguments.The answer isn’t to do either what Dr Flood or Mark Richardson claims: men shouldn’t worry about being more feminine or more masculine. Men simply need to understand that gender stereotyped are myths – once we break down that wall, men and women can begin to build bridges that otherwise couldn’t.I think nothing would be stupider than telling men they should be more masculine.

Good post. I agree with the blog pointing a judgmental finger at Flood's bewildering assault on males. But like you say there are no solutions in these discussions.

Joseph Gelfer, an Australian sociologist suggests that many people wish to return to old gender stereotypes under the false guise of progressive thinking. Whilst he is referring to men's rights groups, he needs to extend that argument to all those supposedly visionary, foward-thinking feminists who posit that all males are universally violent patriarchal brutes, and that women are universally soft victims. Talk about back to the past!!! Nothing progessive in the arguments of these contemporary femocronies. This 'back-to-the-past' idiology is why Naomi Wolf opted out of feminist activism, citing the fact that feminism had become too involved with old-fashioned stereotypes of women as victim. Wolf calls this victim feminism, and she laments the fact that most feminists are not interested in the trult visionary notion of 'power feminism'.

Fact is there are already a panopoly of diverse masculinities being lived out by men right now. We need the Feminists and MRA's to stop stereotyping the genders in thier poorly disguised desire to reinstate the past.